Tin Foil Rabbit Hole, What does the universe sound like? Are we made of sound?

Ok, bare with me… This gonna go deep.
Here are some videos to help pass some time during the CRAZY situation we are all enduring.

What if the Universe is made entirely of musical notes, and every black hole, galaxy, star, planet, moon, asteroid, dust, and everything else is just the sweet music…

What are we?


Are they really what they look like? Each Galaxy could be it’s own song

What shapes the universe? Ringing bells?

This guy has some deep vids on viewing a vortex with supercells and magnets. Also, a lens or two that is modified with human blood can see magnetic fields…

When 2 or more balls of energy collide, you get galaxies?

Rotating mass… The Sun? Earth? The Moon too?

So does this mean The Earth and The Moon are connected like this? See where she places the ping pong ball at like 3 mins in, it rotates like a planet would…

What if, The ENTIRE universe is flat…ish, and these guys are looking at it all wrong?

I don’t know how else to say this, but this is only the surface… What if with extremely precise and measured sound waves, we can manifest any known element into existence… And then entire galaxies.

Also, if we could just play an instrument, like a bell or something which can be tuned to a specific location in another galaxy. Would the whole place manifest itself around us? Or would we teleport there instead?

2 Likes

Unfortunately I don’t have time to watch the videos, since I’m in the fortunate position of not having my workload reduced at all by Covid, but you do know that sound is “just” a pattern of local differences in density that moves through a medium, right? I.e. you have to have a medium first for sound to exist.

There’s neat tricks that let us represent other effects as sound, just as there are neat tricks to, for example, visualise sound so we can “see” it, but in the end that’s just a way of data reinterpretation. It is, at that point, not actually sound anymore, unless you radically change the definition of the term.

4 Likes

And music and math are so intertwined and we know the universe is filled with math…it is not too hard to interpret the math as sound. Of course, what some people describe as ‘music’ is also open to a lot of interpretation.
All interesting stuff though. I would like to add to it by saying, if the universe is music, then we are each a note in a song. In fact, a symphony. (Although these days, some people are out of tune or in the wrong key…) :smile:

1 Like

This is a common misinterpretation. Music and sound are physical phenomenon. The universe is the sum of all physical phenomenae. Math, on the other hand, is the language we use to describe all physical phenomenae.
Everything physical is deeply intertwined with math, because it’s the language we use to describe it all. Of course it is easy to interpret math as sound, since we can only really describe it using math. But at the end of the day, the universe is not math. Ceci n’est pas une pipe.

4 Likes

Light too.

Our two eyeballs are no trick. I believe that Light is sound, and that our bodies are instruments created to sense the universe. I do not know what “we” are… But our minds and thoughts are something more than physical objects right?

Exactly my thoughts, but i’m stuck on who or what is playing the music? What does the ultimate instrument of the universe look like?
If we interpret the universe like it’s music, wouldn’t the scale of measurements change when moving into another galaxy? Would a G chord here in The Milky Way sound the same as it would in another galaxy? I’m not so sure. I would think each galaxy has it’s own ‘Root’ that helps determines what we can sense.

Also, another headpumper of a question is this… Can absolute zero be the hottest known temperature in another galaxy, or universe?



True. Our consciousness does its best at reading ‘The Matrix’ … Is technology only an extension of our thoughts helping measure reality?

Could we humans create an ‘instrument’ that would be capable of manifesting any element into existence?
How long until we have a device on our kitchen counter that just creates the necessary conditions for that perfect pulled pork sandwich to just pop into reality? Or would it be more like the cartoon Rick and Morty with Portals, and we’d have to reach through a ‘window’ and grab a sandwich from somewhere else?

I dunno, but should we allow a device capable of creating everything to even exist?


Crystals… like bells.
Good Vibes

No. Just… no!

Uhm… ok. I am generally respectful of peoples believes, especially if about things that cannot really be quantified, but I’m afraid I have to tell you that this believe is wrong.

One might argue about whether our bodies were created with any purpose, but this is exactly the kind of non-quantifiable believe that I have absolutely no problem with, and even might agree to some degree. It just seems to me that you’re not doing such a great job to sense the universe if you conflate light and sound? I mean, isn’t it better to sense the universe with two completely independant senses rather than with two that are basically redundant, especially if our observations fully confirm that’s the case?

I do believe so. I just don’t see why you’d have to throw our knowledge about the universe out the window to believe it.

I’m afraid that’s the wrong question. Absolute zero is a result from the laws of interaction of particles that govern our universe. There’s no reason for those to be the same in a different universe, hence they might have a different absolute zero. If they have any energy at all, because not even that is a given when speculating about other universes.

1 Like

Please explain this a little more.

From my understanding, light is a wave, and sound is a wave.




Probably, but i’m starting to think it’s all fundamentally the same thing. The 5 senses are all we have to measure our surroundings… It could be that everything is made out of a bunch of resonating frequencies that manifest the physical reality around us.

Yeah, this could take generations to discover a good answer… But I lean towards each galaxy having it’s own set of rules.

Try telling that to Bach… :laughing:

The music of the spheres

2 Likes

Personally, I don’t like Bach… :grimacing:
Give me Mozart and Beethoven. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like

Well, this is gonna get a bit rough… Light is not just a wave. Light consists of particles (photons), which sound does not. As mentioned, sound is a pattern of differences in local densities. Sound is not a physical presence, it is a physical effect. In fact, this is kind of the definition of a wave. Here’s a version of it that I find worded rather understandably:

A wave transmits information or energy from one point to another in the form of signals, but no material object makes this journey.

However, light has a dual nature, which has been known for quite a while now. The term is wave-particle duality, and by now it is assumed that this is in fact a property of all particles.
In other words, while wave functions can be used to very accurately describe the behaviour of light (as long as one does not go subatomic), it isn’t actually one, because there’s an actual physical object being exchanged. Which is why light, despite its wave-like behaviour, can actually propagate without a medium. Which is good, otherwise the universe would be an awfully cold place…
Long story short, light behaves like a wave, but it isn’t one.

This hits right on what I pointed out a few posts earlier: Just because the math describes a behaviour accurately, does not mean that the physical reality is the math, merely that it has the same result. You should never confuse the model with the thing being modeled. This is commonly referred to as the map-territory relation.

The 5 senses are all we have to measure our surroundings…

We have a lot more than that by now, unless you discount all of them because all that information has to be proxied through our senses. In which case, welcome to solipsism

It could be that everything is made out of a bunch of resonating frequencies that manifest the physical reality around us.

It could also be that we just exist as a fidget of the imagination of a Boltzman brain. Again, this goes straight into solipsism. If that’s your gig, sure, be my guest. Just know that solipsism is extremely unproductive. Due to the very nature of its argument, it can never be proven. Anybody entering solipsism looking for truth is in for a harsh disappointment, because there are no means to actually determine it within a solipsistic mindset. It is a nice environment to wallow in whatever delusions one fancies, but it offers no possibility to actually engage with your surroundings. Which, as far as I can tell from your posts so far, is not what you desire.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that galaxies within a universe obey different rules of physics. In fact, there is a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, given that we can observe other galaxies fairly decently by now. Different universes are another matter, but the definition of “a universe” is pretty much one frame in which a single set of rules applies.

Bach just needed to play lots of music to drown out the constant noise of his kids… :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes

I go deep, rough is fine.
Light may not be just a wave, but it sure as hell don’t create photons. I would argue that the photons measured are only ‘squeezed’ past the point of measurement. Laser pointers don’t shoot light, they create a void for light to be observed. The light we see is always there, we just bend reality to see it.

I do not believe light has any physical properties what so ever.

I could agree that light is not just a wave. But If light is behaving like sound, it would need a medium too… What if like sound, light isn’t moving at all.

This is the first time I have even seen this word! What a freaky way of viewing things, but I have to admit that this thought has crossed my mind before. It just cannot be true.

I lean into galaxies having their own set of rules too. Also, even if we observe an element with a collider, it probably wont exist long unless the rules permit it. But what if that short lived element could exist longer in another galaxy. A Universe is a group of galaxies, would there then be groups of universes?

I believe in coincidence… at least that was my answer for the survey during waking titan. But after seeing an upload in my subscriptions feed… Good timing? Or something else?
When it comes to the behavior of light, this guy drops bombs.

It doesn’t create photons, it is photons. Photons are what makes up electromagnetic radiation, which we can measure with our eyes when within certain wavelengths. That’s what we call light. This view isn’t really challenged by anyone.

I have no idea where you are getting this stuff from. Please watch less youtube videos and read more textbooks and papers, at least until you understand the basic mechanics that science teaches. I have no problem with scepticism, but the problem of many armchair sceptics is that they do not actually understand the basics of what they are sceptical about. If you want to find alternative explanations for things, you need to know the actual explanation first, because understanding them will widen your awareness of tangential topics, with which alternative explanations inevitably collide. I have seen many explanations that explain a thing edequately, but create causal effects that would lead to entirely different behaviour of things interacting with their explanation, which is wehere things start to break down.

Yes, that’s what I keep telling you. And you seem to be hellbent on resurrecting the ether from the dead. I wish you good luck reconciling it with special relativity, which was the theory that killed it originally. That’s one of the collisions with tangential topics that I mentioned.

Why? What observation do you base that on?

Sigh… I don’t know why I wasted 7 minutes to start watching a video by an arrogant buffoon that thinks he’s smarter than all of humanity combined, and then in a couple of minutes reveals exactly what I described above: That he does not understand the nature of what he is criticising. Around the 7 minute mark he started arguing about photons in a way that is not even wrong, and I finally gave up.

Here’s the bottom of it: You believe a lot of things, but you don’t know a lot of things. I do understand the desire to believe things rather than just endure the mental tension of not having an opinion, but I have never understood the drive for not just believing in the general consensus if one is not willing to put in the work required to actually arrive at beliefs that match reality.
You can go and watch all the youtube videos with alternate explanations and hilarious ideas that you want, once you put in the work to understand the things they are actually criticising, and therefore have a basis to judge the validity of their arguments.
If you are not willing to put in that work, just accept the scientific consensus! Not because it is necessarily right, but because it was arrived at by experimentation and peer review in a competitive environment, and therefore has a much higher probability of being right than some random guy throwing around weird ideas on youtube. I think that’s the last substantial thing I’m going to say about this topic, because my time doesn’t grow on trees.

At the end of the day, you may believe whatever you want, and I’m not here to change that. All I’m here for is to point out that your beliefs make no sense once you know the first few things about the underlying theory. You can of course just not care about that, but if you want to seek truth, start putting in the necessary work to understand what is generally considered the truth, understand why it is considered the truth, and if you’re not satisfied, work from the understanding you gained. That’s exactly how the scientific process works.

2 Likes

I am no academic. You could say i’m kind of an idiot, though I would call myself a visionary/dreamer who likes to question reality in ways that challenge the mind. Reach for the stars.

Also, I can Lucid dream… With this skill I am able to control what happens in my dreams almost every night. For example, in my dream last night, I was manipulating tornadoes and playing with lightning (probably after looking into plasma speakers and vortex descriptions before bed). How my dream translates into the laws of physics is anyone’s guess. Sure you can say that my dreams are only imaginary, and are confined to my understanding of reality… But it’s the most fun way for me to model and experiment with anything really.

I get that it’s better to understand what defines things first, to then know what can be possible… But I would still argue that people don’t need to understand how anything fundamentally works to imagine what might be possible. Almost daily, I wonder when the first thought of wireless communication happened. The Academics of that time would probably say “Impossible” to who ever expressed the thought.

Still, I contend that photons are just being ‘squeezed’ or carried by something that is allowing light to exist. Light cannot be photons. Lasers are probably just creating voids that allow light to be observed.
When I think laser, I also think about this trope.


Light is like a shadow.
With Lasers, we may be able to recreate everything.



When I think about each galaxy having it’s own set of rules that change the laws of physics, I think about Cymatics shaping reality. Gold may exist in 2 or more Galaxies, but the rules for gold to exist could be different in each galaxy. However this is a flimsy assumption since I do believe in multiple dimensions or universes.

LoL, so you don’t agree with the angry photographer eh? Only time and curiosity can help with that. You have to admit his observations on vortex and magnetic fields are on a higher level than our current understanding of gravity and what not.
Check this then.

What if light has no speed, and does not move at all… Instead, mostly everything else moves through what ever it is.

Neither am I. My grades were so bad they wouldn’t even let me into high school. Haven’t let it stop me from learning things.

I would never say the former. They are imaginary, yes, but there’s no “only” about it. Imagination has brought us where we are, it’s the only thing that will get us further. I do agree with the second part though. Therefore, here’s something else to imagine: Imagine somebody with your talent that has the theoretical background to actually come to valid conclusions with those “thought experiments”. I don’t know if Einstein was a lucid dreamer, but I do know that a lot of the ideas that lead to the theory of special and general relativity were conceived on imaginary flights through space. Of course he had to know what he was working with before, and do a lot of math afterwards to see if his ideas actually worked out, that’s just the work one has to put in to change the world.

It depends on your definition of possibility, I guess.

The basic concept was invented by religion thousands of years ago. But it took a long time until people had accumulated the necessary knowledge to make it work. That’s the problem with imagination: It is irreplacable as a creative force, but without knowledge to build on, and experiments to test, it goes nowhere.

You can contend all you want. Unless you can explain how this is supposed to work, and how it works in the context of relativity, you’re just mumbling garbage and people are wasting time listening to you (at least when you talk about these topics). Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that’s the way it is.

Shadows are a product of light. I don’t even have any idea what you’re trying to say at this point anymore, and what it has to do with Iter. You certainly won’t find many people denying the existence of photons there, I can tell you that much.

How? How can the rules be different?

I went in there unbiased, and concluded he was babbling raving pseudoscience and contradicting himself in several places within 7 minutes. I doubt more time would help… :rofl:

Yes, what if? You ask that question a lot. Now follow it up and try to answer it. Unless you do that, why should anybody listen to you rather than spend their time learning what we do know about it?
(also, good luck explaining something simple as reflections if light is stationary. The mathematical model describing that should be quite interesting, probably more convoluted than the mathematical model of flat earthers to describe the movement of the sun accross the sky…).

1 Like

This statement is the truth. There is an annoying problem that happens with science when weapons are brought into the mix… This is when the gatekeepers pick who can know things and when we can know them. Sometimes physicists hide or even destroy their own evidence if they deem it dangerous.

I would not call it wasting time. I could go on with a bunch of theories, but unfortunately, I cannot fully explain this. The best I can come up with is the aether. There needs to be more experiments done to explore this using modern tech like lasers and computers.

When I say “light is like a shadow” i’ll refer to this guy again.


and this FERROSPHERE. Even if you Ignore his opinions, you have to admit these lenses are amazing.

I’m not denying the existence of photons either. I’m just saying that I do not believe that light is made of them.

I’m unsure with this one. Until we send a probe into another galaxy that is capable of testing if the laws of physics are the same, we may never know for sure. It’s all just theories until then.
But with instruments like ITER we may find a way to create galaxies so small that we can fit them into the palms of our hands. This would make traveling to another one pointless if we just make a mini one instead. LoL for real.

I reach far, and want to see more experiments happen with modern tech.

I’m no Flat Earth guy… Lmao but I do believe they are on to something that needs more attention. Again we need more experiments. Mathematical equations are ideas and theories in the end.
I cant see how reflections prove light moves, and explaining this could take a lifetime. Instead see this

So, here’s the thing: The ether is an outdated concept that was left behind when relativity came around. Since then, relativity has proven its models in observations of predictions, experiments and practical applications, while the ether has never amounted to anything. There is no point experimenting on the ether, as long as relativity just keeps proving itself right. The point where relativity breaks apart is on the subatomic scale, clearly showing that the model is flawed, or at the least incomplete. And guess what, there is a lot of work and experiments being done in that area. None of which involve the ether, I’m afraid.

I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to listen to somebody who thinks photons have mass. I’ll rather spend the time watching some veritassium or PBS spacetime videos about quantum mechanics. I don’t understand those either, but at least I know these guys aren’t just peddling their oppinions, so anything I might understand from them might actually be useful at some point.

I took a short look at this, and yes, it’s pretty cool. A pretty common low-budget science experiment, though. It was first performed about 200 years ago (though admittedly in 2D, but same concept). I don’t see any relation to the topic.

I still think you may be confusing galaxies for universes (it would be very fitting for an NMS forum, where there was quite a confusion in the marketing about the distinction :stuck_out_tongue:).
Now, I don’t see how ITER would be able to create a universe, such esoteric side effects are usually what the LHC is accused of being capable of (not that it is. If it would actually have formed even just a black hole, that would have been bloody amazing, but unfortunately it didn’t).
But galaxies? What kind of definition do you have for the term, exactly? Because here’s mine:

a system of millions or billions of stars, together with gas and dust, held together by gravitational attraction.

I.e. you need, by definition, stars to form a galaxy. How any piece of technology is supposed to produce an actual star on earth without creating a pocket universe for it to form is honestly beyond me (not that I think that we can form a pocket universe, but at least here things become so abstract that flights of fancy are understandable).

I’m afraid experiments with modern tech are done on modern theories, not ones that are a century out of date.

It is weird that you would basically repeat the statement that I made that startedthis whole discussion: The model is not the reality. But a theory is somewhat more than an idea. Most notably, a theory is falsifiable. Before you can list clear criteria on what observations would disprove your theory, it’s not a theory. It’s what is generally called a hypothesis, although the term is not usually applied to ideas that have already been falsified by observations. Those are either called failed ideas if they were around and then disproven, or just pseudoscience if they emerge later than the experiment that already disproved them, or re-emerged without addressing the contradiction pointed out by the previous experiments. The ether, back in the day, was a hypothesis, then it became a failed idea, and since people are bringing it up again without even attempting to reconcile it with relativity, it’s apparently pseudoscience now.

It doesn’t (prove it, that is). But they are fairly easily to explain (on a surface level) with the current model. If you were to propose a model in which light is static, you’d have to address how reflections work if not by redirecting light, and if you can’t manage that, all it does prove is that your model doesn’t hold up, and that we’re better of sticking to the one we have.

1 Like

No. I understand the difference… I do remember some of those articles back in the day tho. Haha

Maybe for now. I do hope this does get more attention someday.

I did mention the LHC earlier, and have heard about the accidental black holes… I wish that some day we do find out how to make mini galaxies.

Some claim that sound has mass too.


Light and sound are basically the same thing.

When ever i’m asked this I just say, “The Earth orbits The Sun, and The Sun orbits a massive Black Hole at the center of The Milky Way.” Beyond that it’s all theories. I try and show people images from Hubble or something too if I can.

I thought Fusion Reactors are like a mini stars? We just need the right ingredients.
(( The Edit was here adding the word reactors after fusion. ) )

You are so wrong.

This is why more experiments are needed whenever new tech happens.

For now.

Sorry, I just have to let it go at this point. I’m starting to feel like I’m getting more interaction from a wall.

1 Like